Now rather than doing your usual trick of seeking to moderate your own debates by blitzing daft accusations around the moderation threads why don't you actually engage bluegenes in the debate in question?
Try explaining why the evidence he has cited doesn't qualify without proclaiming that unsupported and unfalsifiable beliefs somehow constitute counter-evidence. Try answering his questions regarding your own nonsensical position that baseless beliefs do somehow constitute counter-evidence.
Stop hiding behind "off-topic" as if this somehow justifies your silly stonewalling.
Re: Does "stalking" accomplish anything related to the topics?
I guess I would say that actually trying to get a straight answer out of someone is at least as productive and respectful as replying to direct questions with a series of ever-changing but nicely formatted charts, and tables.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out your own relentless proclivity to mischaracterise the arguments of others by translating what is said to you into pure IF THEN type deductive logical arguments.
This is particularly inappropriate and arguably dishonest when your opponents have explicitly stated that they are NOT relying on such deductions (e.g. when they are applying inductive reasoning).
Another handicap I have in debating with most folks on here is that everyone seems to have immersed themselves in the "progressive" "socialist" talking points. It doesn't matter whether you listen to MSNBC or watch PBS or read most books either on a college campus or in a bookstore like Barnes and Noble, they ALL share the same talking points on just about any issue that has been argued and discussed thoroughly. The folks at EVC have memorized all those liberal talking points and can pull out a link at a moments whim to butress any point they are making that is in contradiction to the conservatives points of view.
Some viewpoints are better supported by facts and arguments than others.
This is extremely frustrating for an inarticulate guy like me....
The only cure for inarticulacy is practise. Debating here will give you that.
....who knows instinctually what he believes but cannot put it succinctly into words.
Perhaps the issue here is that what you instinctively believe to be true is not supported by the facts or superior arguments?
Instinctively deciding that things are true is a notoriously unreliable method of determining what is true.
So I suggest you keep practising in debates and do some research on the issue you debate on.